Paul Singer

We address the easy questions here, such as the whole nature of Capitalism and Labour in one short post. Let’s open with Tucker:

For a start, the vital necessity for Tucker Carlson to be on the box cannot be overstated, also every little blog and Twitter account which sends things viral.

Look at the language in the heading:

Bolshy? Interesting description of an Uber Capitalist.  Which leads one to the theme here over the past few days – the mish-mashing of terms, the hijacking and abusing of old meanings of words, so that no one any longer really knows what you mean by this word, what I mean by it.

Bolshy Capitalist – think about that one.  Whilst doing that, might I refer you to my About page and the Political Compass?

I come out as Centre-Right, which you need to remember is an averaging of positions.  In other words, there may well have been some leftwing positions in there and some Genghis Khan positions, authoritarian with children, libertarian with adults … but they average out to what you see.

Even in my 20s, the Anarchist, then Fabian, it was still motivated by a deep down Deplorable mindset – pro-people.  The young are quick to adopt simplistic solutions, quick to approve of govt action – They should do this or that.

With maturity comes the realisation that self-sufficiency and ability to cope by oneself are far more important, that living on a state teat is destructive to the soul.  My teaching was in the private sector, there was no job for life, you were as good as your last year.  Private clients came and went, you held onto them only through what you delivered.

Paul Singer is indeed bolshy – playing the Uber Capitalist game in a leftist way, with no sense of the Carnegie and Ford noblesse oblige – destroying the common man and shoring up the resultant billions is the only game now.  NYC is appropriate for him.  It’s not that he doesn’t care, I believe he very much cares in destroying, he’s part of the whole elitist push to force people onto the state teat, any which way they can do it.

Over here, William Lever’s aims were “to socialise and Christianise business relations and get back to that close family brotherhood that existed in the good old days of hand labour.”  Result – Port Sunlight.

Also check this out:

For through that is control and silencing of opposition to the Grand Plan, the Agenda.  I truly believe that some of my own dear colleagues have not yet fully come to the realisation that this is not just cycles and the nature of competition – it is straight out malice.  With a purpose.

And what ultimately gets a bad name from all of this?

Capitalism or more particularly – the system of free enterprise.  The moment you can get an outcry going against a Paul Singer, the moment people rush completely the other way to embrace state control, then Paul Singer’s job is done there.

What about the ruined small towns?  [Also cue Walmart in this.]  Those towns are often GOP, the coastal pleasure cities DemRat.

Tucker mentioned the UK and asset stripping, he was a bit astray.  Wiki:

In the United Kingdom

The process of asset stripping is not an illegal practice. If a corporate raider sells the target company’s assets individually and pays off its debts the financial regulators have no room for investigation.

The UK is the home of corruption. Wander down to Chatham House or Tavistock and explore history.

In general

Given that the aim is jobs and the way to jobs is to have thriving businesses invested in the community and given the way it’s been going in the UK, moving jobs away from male-oriented manufacturing and industry to the ephemeral service and penpushing fields, suitable for women, I propose a radical change to get men back into work – reopening shipyards, reversing the coal ban and reopening mines … etc. etc.

But who’s going to start that push? And who’s going to bring back the spirit of noblesse oblige?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.